Question of the Day

Do you support a path to citizenship for Dreamers?

President Bush yesterday sent a draft resolution to Congress asking lawmakers "to authorize the use of United States armed forces against Iraq" with or without U.N. support but several key Democrats vowed to rewrite the proposal."If you want to keep the peace, you've got to have the authorization to use force," Mr. Bush said yesterday at the White House."The United Nations Security Council must show backbone, must step up and hold this regime to account," he said. "Otherwise, the United States and some of our friends will do so."The draft resolution calls for unilateral U.S. authority to "use all means," even if the United Nations decides otherwise."The president," the two-page draft resolution reads, "is authorized to use all means that he determines to be appropriate, including force, in order to enforce the United Nations Security Council resolutions, defend the national security interests of the United States against the threat posed by Iraq, and restore international peace and security in the region."The resolution spells out the case for "the use of force by the United States in order to defend itself" from Saddam Hussein's regime, including Iraq's past use of chemical weapons, its sponsorship of terrorism and its 1993 attempt to assassinate Mr. Bush's father.The resolution also cites Saddam's pursuit of weapons of mass destruction and "the high risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its armed forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so."The administration wants congressional approval as soon as possible, and lawmakers said they would vote in two weeks, although Congress could alter the resolution.Senate Democrats emerged from a two-hour meeting last night with only tepid support and promises to rework the resolution.Majority Leader Tom Daschle, South Dakota Democrat, said lawmakers "have a long way to go" before the proposal will be acceptable to a majority of Democrats. "I don't expect there will be unanimity," Mr. Daschle said. "I'm confident we can work through" their concerns.Sen. Russell D. Feingold, Wisconsin Democrat, called the administration's proposed resolution "unacceptable.""As it is written, it is incredibly broad. Not only does it fail to adequately define the mission in question, it appears to actually authorize the president to do virtually anything anywhere in the Middle East," Mr. Feingold said last night.Mr. Daschle said many of his colleagues believe the draft's reference to peace in the "region" is too broad."We're determined to keep the focus on Iraq, not on Iran or other countries in the region that may also pose a threat," he said.Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick J. Leahy, Vermont Demo-crat, said the administration has "laudable goals" but he called the draft resolution a "blank check" that Congress wouldn't sign.Some Democrats in the closed meeting were so unhappy with the White House proposal that they discussed offering a competing resolution.But Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman, Connecticut Democrat and one of the administration's strongest Democratic supporters on the issue, said a competing proposal "is not the alternative that we should seek.""There is an opportunity here to achieve broad, bipartisan common ground," Mr. Lieberman said. "That's the goal of the majority of our members."Republicans and at least one key Democrat, on the other hand, warmly greeted the resolution."It's a very strong draft that would give the president of the United States the authority he needs to defend the national security interests of the United States," said Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott, Mississippi Republican.He predicted that the American people also would back the authorization."I think they support the maximum flexibility for this president and they trust him," Mr. Lott said.House Minority Leader Richard A. Gephardt, Missouri Democrat, called the proposal "an important first step" in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction."I look forward to working with the White House to develop a final resolution that will draw the broadest bipartisan support possible for dealing with this threat," said Mr. Gephardt, who had complained that the White House failed to make a compelling case for immediate action in Iraq.In the draft titled "Joint Resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq," Mr. Bush lays out the case against the Mideast country, which has violated 16 U.N. resolutions since surrendering in 1991 after the Persian Gulf war.The White House yesterday also was pressuring Russia and France to support a U.N. Security Council resolution authorizing force, and a senior administration official said the effort was beginning to sway the reluctant allies.Other parts of the resolution set out the case that the administration already has the authority to go to war against Iraq, with or without explicit new approval from Congress or the United Nations.It states that "the United States has the inherent right, as acknowledged in the United Nations Charter, to use force in order to defend itself."The resolution also sets out Congress' approval of vast presidential powers in dealing with Iraq from the days of the Persian Gulf war and even later. It also says the president has the congressionally recognized "authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States," as well as the "authority under the Constitution to use force in order to defend the national security interests of the United States."While the congressional resolution does not explicitly demand the ouster of Saddam as Mr. Bush has repeatedly called for it also cites the 1998 congressional stance of regime change, signed by President Clinton."Congress in the Iraq Liberation Act has expressed its sense that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime," the resolution says.The resolution cites Saddam's continued aggression in the northern no-fly zone of Iraq, where Iraqi warplanes have been barred since 1991, as well as the 1993 attempt "to assassinate former President Bush."In addition, the resolution states that "members of al Qaeda, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq.""Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens."

The Washington Times Comment Policy

The Washington Times is switching its third-party commenting system from Disqus to Spot.IM. You will need to either create an account with Spot.im or if you wish to use your Disqus account look under the Conversation for the link "Have a Disqus Account?". Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.